I am an an avid, avid watcher of BBC programing, especially the documentaries. They do show how they get their wildlife shots are done. As a wildlife photographer I find their workflow interesting.

I take the educational content seriously. How they get it, I do not make too much of a fuss over it.

Now, is it a news program? If it isn't then they can stage the heck out of it.

Is it a photo/video contest that disallows any form of staging? If it isn't then they can stage the heck out of it.

People should be more scandalized on the staged nature of "reality TV" and talent/singing contests.

Finally, if you dislike what the BBC is doing then all you have to do is turn the TV off.

=========

We must remember that the health & safety of the production staff should take paramount importance rather than the authenticity. We should also consider that the level of difficulty & budget in making such a production somewhat limit the authenticity.

=========

Earlier this year I was being bugged on "authenticity" and "truthfulness" of wildlife photography and to be honest what other people do is their business. If you're in an organization then you should follow their protocols or else just keep out.

=========

In my mind, why the fuck (pardon the language) would I spend so much money to fight people on how they do their business?

Because at the end of the day, you post or otherwise make public your work some idiot with "good intentions" will appropriate your work for their advocacy without even the decency of either acknowledging you for your time/effort/money or compensating you.

Or better yet go after people who destroy the habitat and pouch wildlife rather than some overly enthusiastic cameraman.

Again, for the record. I did not get serious in my photography just so I can dictate others how they should lead their lives. I am neither paying them for their time and gear so best bet is to keep out of their business so long as what they are doing is legal.

If animals and bugs knew what people are on about they'll all think we're f-ing batty.

In most countries, organizations funded by taxes would be called governmental ones.

That is probably correct, for most countries. But it gives you a tilted view of the consequences. BBC, NRK (Norway), SVT (Sweden) and a few other broadcasters are financed through the tax system, rather than commercials. They are controlled by independent bodies, which does not control the money. That gives you two major benefits. One; There are no commercials (American TV is totally wrecked by commercials), and you can watch a program from start to finish without numerous noisy commercial interrupts. Two; Because they have a fixed and firm budget, with clear rules to also serve the niches, they produce programs without being slaves to viewer volumes.So summing up, BBC, NRK and SVT are a lot more independent than a commercially driven broadcaster. Wether it is public or governmental is academic.

That is probably correct, for most countries. But it gives you a tilted view of the consequences. BBC, NRK (Norway), SVT (Sweden) and a few other broadcasters are financed through the tax system, rather than commercials. They are controlled by independent bodies, which does not control the money. That gives you two major benefits. One; There are no commercials (American TV is totally wrecked by commercials), and you can watch a program from start to finish without numerous noisy commercial interrupts. Two; Because they have a fixed and firm budget, with clear rules to also serve the niches, they produce programs without being slaves to viewer volumes.So summing up, BBC, NRK and SVT are a lot more independent than a commercially driven broadcaster. Wether it is public or governmental is academic.

It also allows for documentaries on such interesting subjects such as cranes (the mechanical kind, not the bird kind).

Such subjects would never ever get enough funding to make it interesting production-wise.

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

I remember it well. Used to watch it frequently. And was often amused at the events you describe. He looked like he was getting pretty old, though.

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

That show was incredible.... There was the show where he wrestled a dead anaconda, then the show where they shot the bear up with so much tranquilizers that they killed it, so they spread honey on the carcas and filmed the babies "nursing".... but the best show of all was when they filmed the legendary migration of the lemmings and had a conveyor belt flinging them off of a cliff while they filmed the lemmings "jumping" from below....

Walt Disney rented a lot of trained animals for his wildlife documentaries.... I was impressed with how well groomed his cougars and wolves were....

Faking is what you lead your audience to believe. If you tell them you are film the birth a polar bear in the wild, it had better be in the wild. Lying is even worse than faking. Faking is not telling the audience what is really going on.

As a wildlife photographer I do not want captive animals considered wild. Just state that some of the scenes were filmed in captivity. That makes the truly amazing wildlife image precious compared to one taken where the animal was under some control.